Elinda wrote:
The rest of us are talking about rape.
Mattresses don't rape.
Mattresses don't rape.
Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remember Todd Akin?
Remember Todd Akin?Follow
Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The rest of us are talking about rape.
Mattresses don't rape.
Mattresses don't rape.
Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.
So if the mattress has a vibrator and not only gets you hard but manages to get you off (hands free). Could it be said that you had sex with the mattress.
mattress-raper!
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
The victim didn't have to prove it was non-consenual?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Elinda wrote:
Rape is just another crime against a person. Burden of proof shouldn't be any more or less stringent because it's rape. But it is. Not only does the victim have to prove that someone had sex with him/her they have to prove that it was not consensual.
If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.
If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.
This analogy seems fundamentally flawed.
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The rest of us are talking about rape.
Mattresses don't rape.
Mattresses don't rape.
Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.
So if the mattress has a vibrator and not only gets you hard but manages to get you off (hands free). Could it be said that you had sex with the mattress.
mattress-raper!
And after trusting it enough to fall asleep on it too. Luring someone to sleep with your cushy softness and then taking advantage of them is highly immoral at the very least.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
It is.
Then there is a trial and tricky lawyers attempt to trip up one or the other until the truth is revealed.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
I'm unsure what the point is that this judge was trying to make. If the woman has 'shut down' and is dryed up and the would-be raper has to use some force to insert something into her ******, is it then not rape because she didn't engage in the act.
I think the point was that since there was no such injury reported, it is hard to prove or assume that vaginal rape occurred. Remember that this was during a sentencing discussion, where the defendant was already found guilty (of multiple offenses), and the question was a matter of degree of the sentence. It had nothing to do with whether he was guilty of a given offense, but the severity (and extraneous circumstances) and thus the degree of sentence.
Quote:
Obviously it is still rape even though the woman has shut down and is not mentally or perhaps physically engaged. She's still getting @#%^ed and she still can get pregnant and it's still a physical act against her and against her will.
Which had nothing at all to do with this particular case. A jury had already convicted the guy of whatever charge he was convicted of. Based on the article, it looks like the prosecution was arguing for a maximum sentence based on an assumption of the violence of the rape, and the judge rightly pointed out that in the absence of physical evidence of that particular act (there were others btw, which were taken into account) he could not pass out a maximum sentence.
Quote:
So, maybe the judge saying that if the woman doesn't shut down and doesn't have bleed and is self-lubricated then she's not being raped?
...or is the judge simply attempting to expand the gbaji definition - no marks, no blood, no rape.
...or is the judge simply attempting to expand the gbaji definition - no marks, no blood, no rape.
Yes. Heaven forbid that a judge use the same logic that we should make a distinction between causes where there's clear physical evidence of rape and those where there isn't. It's not "no marks, no rape", but "no marks, can't prove it's rape" (assuming no other evidence of course). I mean, if your neighbor accuses you of hitting him over the head with a hammer, you kind of expect he'd better have some hammer marks on his head to prove that it happened, right? Why should a rape case be any different?
Quote:
Indeed. Do we make an exception in our law for rape? In every other kind of criminal charge, the plaintiff has to provide sufficient evidence to prove guilt on the part of the defendant (or even to prove that the claimed event occurred in the first place), but not in the case of rape? If you walk up to me and manage to hit me without leaving any marks and there are no other witnesses, guess what? I'm not going to be able to charge you with assault. If I accuse someone of turning me into a newt, I'd better be a newt or no one will believe me. I know that this can be a painful issue for women who are victims of rape, but I also strongly believe that weakening our burden of proof in order to make ourselves feel like we're more sympathetic to one specific crime isn't a great thing to do. Our laws and how we prosecute them should be consistent.
Edited, Dec 14th 2012 6:37pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Not intentionally picking on you. You're just making the more interesting statements.
Sure. But the same can be said about a lot of crimes. If you steal my car keys and take my car, I have to prove I didn't give you the car (this comes up more often than you might think). I have to prove that I didn't intend to give that guy my stereo. I have to prove that guy didn't have permission to be on my property. There are a whole bunch of legal charges that revolve around the intent of the parties involved. The difference between degrees of manslaughter versus murder versus justified homicide for example. It's not enough to prove that someone killed someone else, but that it was intentional, or planned, or was not in self defense, etc.
Sure (well, in most normal cases at least). But that's because we normally assume that no one would consent to being stabbed, or shot, or killed, stolen from, etc. But rape is specifically about something that often is consensual, but in this case isn't. The entire charge rests on proving that the sexual activity was not consensual, since that's what makes it rape. I don't think that's an unfair extra burden of proof.
The problem is that it's really hard to prove that sexual activity was non-consensual if there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence of any kind of struggle. This becomes even more problematic if the person being accused is someone the victim has a relationship with (especially a sexual relationship). How can we prove that someone who's been sexual active for months with someone this time didn't consent? Remember, it's not about what actually happened (or what is claimed to have happened), but what can be proven to have happened. That may seem unfair sometimes, but it's a burden of proof that we should stick to IMO. Reducing the burden of proof is a bad idea.
Elinda wrote:
Rape is just another crime against a person. Burden of proof shouldn't be any more or less stringent because it's rape. But it is. Not only does the victim have to prove that someone had sex with him/her they have to prove that it was not consensual.
Sure. But the same can be said about a lot of crimes. If you steal my car keys and take my car, I have to prove I didn't give you the car (this comes up more often than you might think). I have to prove that I didn't intend to give that guy my stereo. I have to prove that guy didn't have permission to be on my property. There are a whole bunch of legal charges that revolve around the intent of the parties involved. The difference between degrees of manslaughter versus murder versus justified homicide for example. It's not enough to prove that someone killed someone else, but that it was intentional, or planned, or was not in self defense, etc.
Quote:
If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.
Sure (well, in most normal cases at least). But that's because we normally assume that no one would consent to being stabbed, or shot, or killed, stolen from, etc. But rape is specifically about something that often is consensual, but in this case isn't. The entire charge rests on proving that the sexual activity was not consensual, since that's what makes it rape. I don't think that's an unfair extra burden of proof.
The problem is that it's really hard to prove that sexual activity was non-consensual if there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence of any kind of struggle. This becomes even more problematic if the person being accused is someone the victim has a relationship with (especially a sexual relationship). How can we prove that someone who's been sexual active for months with someone this time didn't consent? Remember, it's not about what actually happened (or what is claimed to have happened), but what can be proven to have happened. That may seem unfair sometimes, but it's a burden of proof that we should stick to IMO. Reducing the burden of proof is a bad idea.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....
Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?
Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?
If he's taking it in the butt and has a hard on, he's obviously gay and everyone knows those dudes are total whores. So no.
What if he's a Nigerian prince getting gang raped to death?
Just as Planned.
Hello friend and warm hello to you. I am Mbouti Laoumbout, Chief Financial Vice-President of the the Nigerian Economic Bank of Business Economics. Recently Prince Uroko Onoja of Ogbadibo, a wealthy philanthropist was raped to death leaving ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS in escrow account that I need your help in obtaining if you are a trustworthy and discreet person of trustworthiness character...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Hello friend and warm hello to you. I am Mbouti Laoumbout, Chief Financial Vice-President of the the Nigerian Economic Bank of Business Economics. Recently Prince Uroko Onoja of Ogbadibo, a wealthy philanthropist was raped to death leaving ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS in escrow account that I need your help in obtaining if you are a trustworthy and discreet person of trustworthiness character...
Re:
Just send me the nice young one that tried to resuscitate him and we'll call it even. You can keep the crazy ones.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
Nadenu wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
They both have quills!!
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
They both have quills!!
Poe wrote on both.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
They both have quills!!
Poe wrote on both.
The sound of tapping can be heard from both.
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
You can put your **** in both of them.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Um...
No, never mind.
No, never mind.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Recent Visitors: 327
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (327)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remember Todd Akin?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC